In the “Barack the Magic Negro” thread in the Pit, there’s a bit of a disagreement going on as to how much deference (one might say “servility” if one is so inclined) is due the President (or the Presidency) by ordinary non-presidential Americans on account of the President being the Head of State. One argument that’s being brought up by ascenray is that the U.S.A. doesn’t have a head of state, because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say we do.
This argument strikes me as somewhat tortured, and I find myself more in agreement with the posters who claim that every state, by definition, has a head, and the President is it for us. I looked up “Head of State” on Wikipedia, and the article tends to support my view, but I recognize that argumentum ad petitio wikipedium is not really considered a gold standard around these parts.
The President is definitely the head of state. He is the head of the Executive branch. You’d really need to torture the language to get any other answer.
(ETA: The definition of what a President is has definitely changed over time, but today there is no question that the President is head of state)
Why would interacting with the Head of State require deference or servility? People yelling “Hi, George!” at rallies weren’t being charged with some 21st century lèse majesté, after all.
Well, nominally the President is Head of State. The US doesn’t really have one, and we don’t do the make-nice-meet-n-greet in person like many European countries do. And there is actually a lot of variation in how different countries around the world handle it. The President gets that job when it’s neccessary, but we don’t put much stress on it.
:dubious: Of course we do. The POTUS is the most recognizable head of state in the world, more so than the Queen of the UK. He embodies America in the eyes of the world. Even within America we name historical periods after him – i.e., we speak of this or that event as having taken place during “the Reagan Administration” or whichever, as the ancient Greeks might have said an event took place “when Xanthippus was Archon of Athens,” or as medieval Europeans might have said “in the third year of the reign of King Edward IV.”
Then hand me the dwarf, I’ve already got the pliers.
Your reasoning implies a superiority of the Executive that is popular amongst certain political reptiles, i.e., Darth Cheney. In itself, that should give you pause.
But the Founding Fuckups were quite clear in their intention to create separate and co-equal branches of government. That this separation has been strained and abused is not the question, it most assuredly has.
But the American Executive is not afforded the power or the grandeur that most fits the phrase “Head of State”, he is charged to execute the will of the people, as expressed by their legislators. Now, Cheney and his monkey have inflated that role, making him effectively the Head of State (while demonstrating most abundantly why that is such a bad idea.)
A hundred activist liberal judges buzzed on methedrine and bong water couldn’t find that much penumbras and emanations in the Constitution. The President isn’t even empowered to lead, in any specific fashion, he’s supposed to do as he’s told.
For purposes of formality…funerals, declarations, so on and so forth…he may style himself Head of State, but in that role he merely represents us, as the Queen represents England. But that’s only the kabuki of formal ceremony.
The Executive Branch that ChenyCo envisions is grotesque and repulsive, and I’m agin it.
No. Separate, and politically independent of one another, but not co-equal. In every government in recorded human history that has had distinguishable branches, the executive authority has been supreme in importance, and authorized to represent the state to other states in a way that the other branches are not.
Actually, and speaking as a lawyer and a very left-leaning lawyer, that ain’t in the Constitution, not in so many words. That is, the POTUS is under the law as enacted in all constitutional ways, pace Nixon, but not under the will of the people in any other sense. Any perceived electoral “mandate” he may have to do this or that has no legal or constitutional significance.
No it doesn’t. The branches are equal…all that checks and balances stuff. But the head of the Executive (a.k.a. the President) is pretty much acknowledged as the head of the state, especially in modern times.
You will be surprised to learn that these actually predate ‘Darth Chaney’ et al by many decades. Hell, this state of affairs probably pre-dates you…
The ‘Founding Fuckups’ left the question fairly vague, as was their language describing the exact role a President would have. This however has been refined for the two plus centuries we have been a viable state, until our current incarnation of Evil.
Again, this trend pre-dates Bush the Magic Asshole but many decades…perhaps even a century or more. Not sure if that pre-dates you 'luci, but it’s been a while.
Every president has inflated the role. I didn’t really tackle the question of the whole pomp and grandeur of the position (or the protocols involved by private citizens toward the President), as I felt this was a silly question. We don’t really have much of that kind of thing, though some level of respect for the OFFICE is generally expected. I was merely chiming in on whether or not we ‘have’ (i.e. currently) a ‘Head of State’, and if the President was in fact that person. We do and it is and you’d have to torture your dwarf severely if you want to make it otherwise.
You seem to be under the erroneous impression that this all started with Bush the Younger or that he has done more to modify or change (or grab) additional Presidential powers not initially granted to him. Every President since Washington has done their bit to refine exactly what a President is, what his role is, what powers he has, etc…and that brings us to today and our current understanding of the roles and powers of the President. Our system was deliberately not cast in concrete and is a living, growing and changing system.
Today the President is the Head of State. If President Elect Obama would like to change that and grant back some of the powers he inherits from his predecessors then he is more than free to do so…it will be his to do in fact. I’m not holding my breath for such an event but I suppose for some hope springs eternal.
Potato, tomahto. If he is as subject to the law as any of us, and the law is enacted by the representatives of the people, then the people hold the final authority, sovereignty is ours, and no one else’s. “Power to the People!”, as Franklin said. Well, maybe he didn’t, but somebody did. Pretty sure.
No, for ceremonial purposes you need a Head of State. Wreath laying, that sort of thing. For that you need one person, for obvious logistical reasons, if nothing else.
For practical purposes, you have an executive, a President, a first amongst equals.
I am quite aware that this principle has been Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition many times, some of those even before the dawning of the Age of Elucidator. I am unimpressed by longevity, got some of my own. Men are tempted to grasp more power than they are legitimately entitled? Imagine our surprise, perhaps we should have included some checks on that?
Well, looky here! My Big Golden Book of the Constitution says we did! Son-of-a-gun!
We don’t have a direct democracy but a representational one. Sure, we all hold the sovereign franchise, but by our choices we elect those people who will represent us. And through several permutations of our government we have arrived at the fact that the President is considered the Head of State. This doesn’t mean that the President has sole and uncontested power, or that the other two branches are somehow weaker or dependent on the President. The checks and balances are still checking an balancing away. Each aspect of the government still has it’s main sphere of power and influence.
I’m losing my train of thought here…one scotch too many I expect. To summarize, the US has a ‘Head of State’, and the office of that person is President of the US. Additionally the President is also Commander in Chief of the US armed forces…something else that was a change from the way the FF envisioned it (or at least a clarification to their less than clear definitions of his roles in this aspect).
It’s a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We, collectively, are the head of State. And we are represented by three equal branches of government. It is a system of check and balances. If that isn’t true anymore, run for your lives!
You can’t have a head of government composed collectively of 300+ million citizens. Won’t work…would never work. We elect the people who will represent our interests, who will make the decisions and do the things necessary for our system to continue to function. Once elected we have no real say in what they do, other than the fact that if they fuck up we have the recourse of not voting for them in the next election cycle.
The checks and balances aspects are still true (by and large) as the FF envisioned them. What has mostly happened with the Presidency is that exactly what the Presidents roles and responsibilities are have been refined. Today it’s pretty indisputable that the President IS the Head of State. If it bothers you and you are thinking OMG! The President can do anything he wants, well, consider…the Queen of England is also considered the Head of State. This may be the booze talking, but I THINK the Emperor of Japan is also still considered the Head of State as well…and there are a couple of further examples I could trot out if I could just wring the booze out of my brain.
Well, I think that’s the point. The term Head of State doesn’t actually mean anything at all, beyond its ceremonial aspects.
Well, and with respect to relations between nations, but I think that practically speaking, those can be considered ceremonial as well. Frex, a President negotiates and signs treaties, but AIUI, treaties require ratification and enabling legislation from the legislative branch before they have any practical significance.
As pointed out, “head of state” really doesn’t mean diddly-squat in terms of actual power. Any number of constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics have formally defined “heads of state” who, either as the result of longstanding tradition or in some cases the explicit statements of their constitutions, have no actual power.
It’s head of government (the “executive power” that is “vested in a President of the United States of America”) that is the real source of potential danger to the Republic. Note that the various European constitutional monarchies have been perfectly happy to leave the whole “head of state” thing in the hands of the bejeweled descendants of the various barbarian thugs who conquered the places back in the Dark Ages, while taking care to see that the “head of government” is someone democratically accountable to The People. Conversely, Mussonlini (the ur-fascist dictator) was not head of state in Fascist Italy–Victor Emmanuel III was King of Italy, not to mention King of Albania and Emperor of Ethiopia–Mussolini was just the guy who was actually in charge of everything. (Mussolini became notional head of state upon the establishment of the Italian Social Republic–at which point he no longer really had control of anything; he was just a figurehead for the Nazis.)
Given the essential nature of “head of state”–it’s all about precendence and ceremony–a country’s “head of state” is whoever everyone says it is. And given this ceremonial nature of the concept, if everyone recognizes the President of the United States as the country’s head of state, it’s entirely futile to try to argue that he isn’t really the head of state. Certainly the various states of the world have long recognized the POTUS as the USA’s HoS; that is, the person who represents and embodies the country in international affairs–a function which the Constitution has given to the President since the beginning (“he shall receive ambassadors”).
Really, the whole concept of “head of state” is archaic and kind of silly. Nonetheless, it’s sufficiently ingrained, especially in international relations, that we’re probably stuck with it.
The President is effectively Head of State, when there arises a need for such a thing, but many ceremonial or ambassadorial duties are often passed onto the VP, the FL, various cabinet members, or diplomats as is appropriate.
With regards to reverence, the President is afforded some special respect, but not all that much more than other high level members of the government - it’s somewhat in the DNA of the founding of the country not to give such reverence as would be given a royal head of state, since the revolution began in part to escape that.
